Beginner mirrorless, £2k to spend...decisions...decisions...

A

andydeano

Messages
28
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Some years ago I used a D90 with a few lenses sigma 24-70, nikon 70-200 and the nifty 50 (from memory) had to sell it and had various cameras since but nothing great.

I've come into some money and am wanting to get back in with some nice equipment. I prefer APS-C / M43 over DSLR because of the weight savings. (having a slipped disk doesn't help)

looking around can get a decent body for about £500 A6000 / XE2 / OMD-EM10 2 etc etc, With having money to invest in glass and upgrade the body in say 12-18months if required then I'm somewhat stuck.
Sony and Olympus pro glass is good and have seen some excellent results on flickr from various lenses I've been looking at. The fuji XF lenses seem to do really well and there is plenty of choice, like M43, Sony seems a little lacking on the E-mount stuff. I'm not after many lenses to start with 15-55 / 50-200 / 20 / 35 / 45 and a macro. or just one decent prime (from the list) to start with a least.

The question is what glass should I be investing in....Sony have moved on from E mount to FE mount now...M43 has loads of choices and decent prices on the secondhand market. Fuji seem to have good lenses and plenty of selection.

thanks
 
Weight and size wise m4/3 is the better option, and m4/3 has just about everything covered lens wise. There's only a couple of m4/3 bodies that offer good subject tracking if you want to shoot moving stuff.

Something like the Sony a6000 (and the replacements) have very good focus tracking, and lenses aren't extensive but cover most things (barring super telephoto). E-mount is for APS-C sensors, FE is for full frame. FE lenses will be a similar size and weight to FF DSLR lenses though so no real weight saving.

Fuji do excellent lenses, again not extensive but have most bases covered. Fuji glass can be pricy, and like most mirrorless subject tracking isn't the best (not sure on the latest one though).
 
snerkler said:
Fuji do excellent lenses, again not extensive but have most bases covered. Fuji glass can be pricy, and like most mirrorless subject tracking isn't the best (not sure on the latest one though).
Click to expand...

The tracking on the X-T2 is excellent, the zone focus tracking setting works really well. I had no problem with motorsport at Oulton Park last weekend, the only issue was the idiot behind the viewfinder. the X-T2 tracking works where the X-T1/X-E2 struggle.

but an X-T2 and one lens is just about all of the budget of the OP
 
predomimently I will be shooting landscapes, wildlife and macro, portraits of the kids now and again. The obligitory sports day as well of course.

Having browsed flickr, I do prefer the Fuji/Olympus output. Fuji pics seem to have more soul in them for want of a better word.

Right under stand now E vs FE though same fitting. In the long run FE would be better, however as you've pointed out, weight / size offers no advantage over DSLR.

I've noticed some Fuji lenses seem to be vey expensive, thought it was a miss price at first, until I checked a few other sites. I had read that focus tracking is somewhat behind on the Fuji's but recent firmware had improved things a lot.

Good to know the X-T2 has the focus tracking sorted, but as you've pointed out, an X-T2 and one lens kind of defeats the object. However in 18-24 months time a X-T2 would be a good investment and compliment the Fuji lenses.

I guess it will come down to which body feels the nicest and suits, get the glass and don't look at any alternatives once purchased.

thanks for the replies.
 
andydeano said:
predomimently I will be shooting landscapes, wildlife and macro, portraits of the kids now and again. The obligitory sports day as well of course.

Having browsed flickr, I do prefer the Fuji/Olympus output. Fuji pics seem to have more soul in them for want of a better word.

Right under stand now E vs FE though same fitting. In the long run FE would be better, however as you've pointed out, weight / size offers no advantage over DSLR.
Click to expand...

I keep reading this and it's (more or less) tosh. The A7 series bodies are about the same size as a MFT or Fuji SLR style bodies and depending upon the lenses you compare the A7 may not be significantly bigger but will be smaller than a DSLR set up unless the A7 is fitted with a humongous lens to completely reverse the size and weight saving of the small body.
 
Go and try the bodies out, with the budget you have it is very hard to buy a truly bad setup and much will come down to personal taste rather than there being an inherently better camera. I love the rangefinder style of the X-Pro2 but some hate it, my wife loves the small Pen-F but I find it fiddly and awkward. One of my friends is surgically attached to his Sony A7RII but I just can't get on with it at all. None of us are wrong, we just have the right camera for our needs/personality.

Pretty much any camera released in the last 12-18 months will have good enough AF for 95% of what you're planning to shoot. I'd almost take AF out of the equation unless your fast-moving wildlife/sports stuff is going to account for more than ~10% of your photos, in which case I'd probably just suck up the DSLR weight as they still lead the way for C-AF (although my X-T2 is very good).

My personal opinions (and it is that rather than facts):

Sony: Best in terms of technology but can feel a bit cold, the phrase "shooting with a computer" comes up every now and then and that's how I feel but others love them. In terms of sensor technology they are usually the best or very close to it. They have a very good set of lenses but the best ones are very expensive/overpriced (IMO).

Olympus: Pack a lot into a small body, great IBIS, cool features like Live Time, Live Composite and Focus Stacking (depending on the body). A very good selection of lenses at good prices. The sensor is smaller than APS-C/FF but the quality is at the point where you may not notice/care.

Fuji: Best in terms of feel, OOC jpgs are fantastic and the film modes are genuinely useful. Pretty much every lens is fantastic and well-priced but there are few cheap options. The recent cameras (X-Pro2/X-T2) address the AF weaknesses of the older models which I'd probably avoid as a beginner unless you're pretty patient.


I moved from Nikon FF to Panasonic m43 to Olympus m43 and now shoot Fuji exclusively (apart from a Sony RX1) and I'm very happy here because shooting with Fujis just puts a smile on my face and the images always seem to capture a moment how I remembered it without excessive PP.



So what would I recommend if I had to.... probably a second hand E-M1 or E-M5 mk2 with the 12-40 Pro lens. That should actually come in under your budget but I'd shoot with that for at least a couple of months and supplement it based on the type of shots you're taking (or missing out on). If you buy too much in one go you may well find yourself with lenses gathering dust or you might find you just don't like the system as much as you expected. If you buy used then you'll limit your loss rather than taking a big hit. But as I said first, if you possibly can then try them out in-store or from friends/family first :)
 
ricky1981 said:
Go and try the bodies out, with the budget you have it is very hard to buy a truly bad setup and much will come down to personal taste rather than there being an inherently better camera. I love the rangefinder style of the X-Pro2 but some hate it, my wife loves the small Pen-F but I find it fiddly and awkward. One of my friends is surgically attached to his Sony A7RII but I just can't get on with it at all. None of us are wrong, we just have the right camera for our needs/personality.

Pretty much any camera released in the last 12-18 months will have good enough AF for 95% of what you're planning to shoot. I'd almost take AF out of the equation unless your fast-moving wildlife/sports stuff is going to account for more than ~10% of your photos, in which case I'd probably just suck up the DSLR weight as they still lead the way for C-AF (although my X-T2 is very good).

My personal opinions (and it is that rather than facts):

Sony: Best in terms of technology but can feel a bit cold, the phrase "shooting with a computer" comes up every now and then and that's how I feel but others love them. In terms of sensor technology they are usually the best or very close to it. They have a very good set of lenses but the best ones are very expensive/overpriced (IMO).

Olympus: Pack a lot into a small body, great IBIS, cool features like Live Time, Live Composite and Focus Stacking (depending on the body). A very good selection of lenses at good prices. The sensor is smaller than APS-C/FF but the quality is at the point where you may not notice/care.

Fuji: Best in terms of feel, OOC jpgs are fantastic and the film modes are genuinely useful. Pretty much every lens is fantastic and well-priced but there are few cheap options. The recent cameras (X-Pro2/X-T2) address the AF weaknesses of the older models which I'd probably avoid as a beginner unless you're pretty patient.


I moved from Nikon FF to Panasonic m43 to Olympus m43 and now shoot Fuji exclusively (apart from a Sony RX1) and I'm very happy here because shooting with Fujis just puts a smile on my face and the images always seem to capture a moment how I remembered it without excessive PP.



So what would I recommend if I had to.... probably a second hand E-M1 or E-M5 mk2 with the 12-40 Pro lens. That should actually come in under your budget but I'd shoot with that for at least a couple of months and supplement it based on the type of shots you're taking (or missing out on). If you buy too much in one go you may well find yourself with lenses gathering dust or you might find you just don't like the system as much as you expected. If you buy used then you'll limit your loss rather than taking a big hit. But as I said first, if you possibly can then try them out in-store or from friends/family first :)
Click to expand...

I didn't read this because it's long AF... but I agree whole heartedly with the first six words!
 
Sony A7's being similar in size to fujis could be a possibility but would pretty much blow the budget on a lens and body.

I'll go and check out some bodies. I'm tending to lean towards the Fuji / Olympus just from paper, both having recently released and announced new bodies. Which is a nice upgrade path. Although Fuji seem to keep updating older bodies with new features which is nice.

I don't mind getting kit second hand, most places offer a warranty of 6 months at least.

Thanks for your time and comments. Shorty reply as on mobile.
 
woof woof said:
I keep reading this and it's (more or less) tosh. The A7 series bodies are about the same size as a MFT or Fuji SLR style bodies and depending upon the lenses you compare the A7 may not be significantly bigger but will be smaller than a DSLR set up unless the A7 is fitted with a humongous lens to completely reverse the size and weight saving of the small body.
Click to expand...
But this is the thing, you have to compare like with like. It's no good comparing a DSLR and 70-200mm f2.8 with an A7 and 70-200mm f4 to show that the A7 is smaller and lighter. It's not unreasonable to think a lot of folk will be buying the new 24-70mm f2.8 for the A7. Size of the lens isn't any different to the equivalent Nikon so all you're saving is a couple of hundred grams on the body. Not a huge saving IMO if the main reason you're wanting to move away from DSLR is size/weight. The equivalent Fuji set up is quite a bit lighter than DSLR, and then the Olly system is lighter and smaller still.

I'm not saying that the A7 system isn't lighter, it's just not enough difference imo to swap from DSLR purely for this reason. YMMV

http://camerasize.com/compact/#567.327,624.515,594.412,679.448,ha,t
 
Get thee an X-T10 and a couple of lenses from the refurb store - maybe the XF18-55 and a couple of primes. That should be well possible within your budget and it's super compact and light enough to take just about anywhere and produces beautiful pics.
 
Samyang never heard of them lol I'll take a look.

X-T10 looks alright. I'll have a wonder into a camera shop and give them a try.

Thanks
 
andydeano said:
Sony A7's being similar in size to fujis could be a possibility but would pretty much blow the budget on a lens and body.

I'll go and check out some bodies. I'm tending to lean towards the Fuji / Olympus just from paper, both having recently released and announced new bodies. Which is a nice upgrade path. Although Fuji seem to keep updating older bodies with new features which is nice.

I don't mind getting kit second hand, most places offer a warranty of 6 months at least.

Thanks for your time and comments. Shorty reply as on mobile.
Click to expand...

That may well be so, it's just that I seem to be rebelling against the excesses we see on forums at the moment :D

Personally I'd have Panasonic and Sony A6000 on the list too and if starting today I think I'd be very torn between those two. The A6xxx series are APS-C, give good image quality and have some very nice features such as being able to use auto ISO with exposure compensation in all modes and also allowing full time dof preview. These are wonderful features and I wish my Panasonic MFT cameras allowed them, they don't.

One caution if looking at Panasonic, be aware of the shutter shock issue and choose your kit to avoid it.
 
Last edited:
So tried the EM10 mark 2, nice to hold, compact as well. menu system is nice and buttons are programmable a grip enhances the ergonomics nicely. WIFI setup is nice.

A6000 sit well in the hand, quite a compact body in comparison to the OMD and Fuji's. Menu system is alright, get use to it I guess. lenses are big. shame it hasn't got a touch screen like the EM10!

Tried an X-E2 and also a X-T1, T1 felt better to hold, slightly larger than the E2 lenses are also large. menu system is OK. I like how easy it os to reprogram all the buttons.

Fuji has a good selection of lenses and the XF lenses certainly seem well made, focus rings feel nice.

Sony certainly not as many lens and without jumping up to the pro line the guy in the shop wouldn't be as good as the fuji's like for like.

M4/3 nice and compact, plenty to choose from and love how a prime on the body is still pretty pocketable (command trousers / coat)

So I think I'm learning more towards EM10 or a Fuji.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
If you buy m4/3rds please buy the Olympus 45mm ASAP. great lens.
Lumix 20mm pancake is great too.
Click to expand...
I strongly agree here. I moved to Sony FF and had to spend £££££ to get anything close to portrait quality of the bargain Olympus 45mm.
 
Yep the 45mm is amazing value. Not too bad wide open, but excellent stopped down.
 
My advice would be to pick up an X-T1 with the 18-55mm, try it for a while, then pick up some primes based on your usage over the breaking in period, then once you are hooked, upgrade to an X-T2 -)
 
I've noticed the 45 and Panasonic 20 1.4 or 1.7 can't remember now are amazing quality for the cost. Those two together would just about get a Fuji prime of some description.

Can't view the members market / classifieds as not been a member long enough. :(
 
One thing that puts me off the Fuji (xe2 was all I had time to try with the XF 1855) was it seemed a bit lethargic at getting a focus in comparison to the A6000 and M10. It was on 4.0.1 firmware, definitely started with a 4. The T2 has nailed it with regards AF. I believe the only difference between the XE2 and T1 is the body pretty much, nothing that would change AF performance between them, unless I'm mistaken?
 
andydeano said:
One thing that puts me off the Fuji (xe2 was all I had time to try with the XF 1855) was it seemed a bit lethargic at getting a focus in comparison to the A6000 and M10. It was on 4.0.1 firmware, definitely started with a 4. The T2 has nailed it with regards AF. I believe the only difference between the XE2 and T1 is the body pretty much, nothing that would change AF performance between them, unless I'm mistaken?
Click to expand...

I felt the X-T1's AF was better but if great AF is important to you in a Fuji body then you need the X-Pro2 or X-T2. Both are incredible cameras though, you could buy either with the XF35f2 and you'd have a very fast AF setup capable of great things.

Not much money left over for much else but man that would be a sweet reintroduction to photography :)
 
As you've mentioned AF a fair bit, I would say that the X-T2 or the a6300 would be your best choices with the a6000 as the budget option for more lenses.

I'm actually deciding between these three cameras right now!
 
If you are buying into a system that you want to improve and add to it in the future then my advice is to avoid Sony.

They have no idea what they are doing or where they are going and instead of listening to their customers they test products on them. I have stuck with them from their DSLRs to SLTs and mirrorless until I got fed up and moved to Fuji.

I haven't tried the OMD system so I don't know anything about it but love my Fuji and can recommend it as a growing system.
 
ricky1981:
I'll have to try and find a T1 to see if it's any better. It could always be me of course.

I'd love an X-Pro2 / X-T2 along with every other fuji owner who doesn't currently own one :D

either of the "2" with a nice prime would be great, kinda of limiting though lol


Adamsk1:
I don't envy you at all! it's bad enough trying to decide.

architectfadi:
thanks, I''m tending to lean away from Sony. If anything I'm going to go with an OMD / Fuji body.

The sony Nex line has been out longer than Fuji X system, but fuji have certainly listened to customers and given plenty of lens choices in that time.

I also like how fuji support their cameras and bodies with firmware updates constantly.

thanks for your thoughts.
 
Hello Andy

A couple of years ago sold off my D300 and lenses and bought an XE2 with 18-55 and some primes.
I could not get on with the slow Af system and traded it in for a D750 plus a few lenses. Have subsequently added a D500 with 16-80 lens (also used with 300mm).
Now my old disc problem has reappeared and I too am looking to save weight.

The Fuji is still very attractive but when you look at the weight they are no lighter than some Nikon APS C DSLR's. The D5500 with a good Sony sensor
weighs 470gms, about the same as the XT2. Body £530 lens 16-80 £750. Money left over for some of the new 1.8 primes which are lightweight and good.
2 disadvantages however are 1. Currently no Nikon Ultra wide angle Dx primes and 2. no AF fine tune on the D5500.
This guy thought the 5500 was good.
https://blog.mingthein.com/2015/12/21/review-the-nikon-d5500/

My conclusion is that APS c mirrorless is not enough of a weight/size saving over DSLR and M43 is the way to solve this problem. I agree Olympus would be the one if I
Decide to go down that route.

Good luck with whatever you choose and enjoy it.
 
Hi Peter123,

sorry to hear you've got a disk problem as well. if i knew what I know now 20 years ago then I'd have done a lot more to take care of my back.

The issue with mirrorless and weight is when you start adding lenses, especially APS-C lenses. the XT1, E2 and EM5 mark 2 are all pretty much the same, the Olympus being the heaviest, the EM10 is a little lighter. The lightest M4/3 camera I've looked at (not in person was the Panasonic GF7 266g) but it looks pretty flat on the front, would need a grip, not really an issue.

The 45mm olympus lens is only 116g and the 56 fuji lens is 405g which doesn't sound like much but a GF7 and 45mm would weigh less than just the bodies of the rest.The new PEN E-PL8 is 374g which for me I would just get the EM10 instead.

fuji 55-210 zoom is 580g and the olympus 75-300 is 422g

If I was looking at Nikon DX format I might as well go for the Sony 7 full frame really.

thanks for your input and thoughts.
 
Just a couple of points on the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 if you end up going the MFT way...

On the plus side it's very compact and the image quality is good but it has a couple of negatives... it's relatively slow to focus (this may or may not be an issue for you) and somewhat bizarrely it can cause noise banding at high ISO's but again this may not be an issue for you.

I have one but since I got the Oly 17mm f1.8 I haven't used it. I have the Oly 45mm f1.8 and I agree it's a good lens and very compact too.

If saving bulk and weight is your aim I'd say that MFT is a good system to look at but as the mirrorless SLR style cameras can be about the same bulk wise maybe you'd see the biggest savings if going for a RF style camera? They lose the VF hump but they could be about the same weight, I'd have to check. A RF style camera could be something to think about though.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
But this is the thing, you have to compare like with like. It's no good comparing a DSLR and 70-200mm f2.8 with an A7 and 70-200mm f4 to show that the A7 is smaller and lighter. It's not unreasonable to think a lot of folk will be buying the new 24-70mm f2.8 for the A7. Size of the lens isn't any different to the equivalent Nikon so all you're saving is a couple of hundred grams on the body. Not a huge saving IMO if the main reason you're wanting to move away from DSLR is size/weight. The equivalent Fuji set up is quite a bit lighter than DSLR, and then the Olly system is lighter and smaller still.

I'm not saying that the A7 system isn't lighter, it's just not enough difference imo to swap from DSLR purely for this reason. YMMV

http://camerasize.com/compact/#567.327,624.515,594.412,679.448,ha,t
Click to expand...

This is something we all have to decide for ourselves but IMO looking at a top view doesn't tell the whole story, look at these cameras from the front or back and the saving in bulk compared to a DSLR is immediately obvious...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#594.412,679.448,624.515,567.327,ha,b

To me there was a significant saving in bulk and weight when going from a Canon 5D to MFT and Sony A7. In reality these mini SLR bodied CSC are tiny compared to a mid to upper range DSLR and an inch or so on or off the end of a lens doesn't change that for me. YMMV.

I think that the big saving is going from DSLR to CSC, swapping between CSC's of similar SLR style design may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. Changing to something like the Panny GX7/GX80 or Oly Pen may bring additional savings.
 
woof woof said:
This is something we all have to decide for ourselves but IMO looking at a top view doesn't tell the whole story, look at these cameras from the front or back and the saving in bulk compared to a DSLR is immediately obvious...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#594.412,679.448,624.515,567.327,ha,b

To me there was a significant saving in bulk and weight when going from a Canon 5D to MFT and Sony A7. In reality these mini SLR bodied CSC are tiny compared to a mid to upper range DSLR and an inch or so on or off the end of a lens doesn't change that for me. YMMV.

I think that the big saving is going from DSLR to CSC, swapping between CSC's of similar SLR style design may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. Changing to something like the Panny GX7/GX80 or Oly Pen may bring additional savings.
Click to expand...
Obviously we disagree on this/are looking at it slightly differently, and I guess we're not the only ones ;) I agree that the body is smaller, but as I said previously in terms of weight saving 200g isn't much when it's still well over 1kg for a general walkabout set up. The other issue for me is that due to the size and design on the A7 the balance isn't as good (imo) and as such don't find it as comfortable to use with bigger lenses. The A7 is great with a prime lens, but start putting the bigger lenses on and I still prefer DSLR. My m4/3 setup was great as the sizes of the lenses matched the body :)

But obviously YMMV as you said, and there are a lot of happy A7 users out there :)
 
I went through earlier today and did some weight comparisons. A prime(pancake), 14-40ish 40ish-200ish and a macro lens. With a close as possible being the same aperture / pro range.

The lightest is an olympus setup with the EM10 / followed by EM5 mark 2 (around 1250g). Fuji (depending on body) is 2-300g heavier than the olympus. The Nikon D5500 came in another 2-300g heavier than the Fuji setup. Sony came in at over 3000g. So roughly speaking a fuji setup is half the weight of a sony setup and the M43 is almost a 3rd of the weight. I did this exercise just to see how much weight there would be between lenses for each system if I was purchasing and also cost of the lenses as well.

I've purchased a Fuji X-E2 with the XF15-55 and also the XC zoom 55-210? secondhand. £500 for the X-E2 with lens from fuji and £160 for the other lens.

Still not entirely sure if it's the right decision but thought I might as well dive in, especially as that kit from the fuji store seems like a great price. I might end up going to a M43 setup in a few months, time will tell.

Thanks all for your input, thoughts and suggestions.
 
Last edited:
Well done Andy, make sure you update the X-E2 body and lenses with the latest (free) Fuji firmware online etc. I've only just bought a virtually new X-E2 body myself last week, still learning it compared to my iconic X-Pro1.

Have fun.....!!!!!!
 
The X-E2 is a great camera, especially with the latest firmware update (which you may have to install yourself - it's easy mind). The 18-55/2.8-4 is very good indeed (my most used lens these days). Is it the 50-230mm xc lens you've purchased alongside? IQ is excellent from it if so, and it's very light. Not too quick to focus though, not terrible, but not a sports lens!

Either way, the Fuji system is a joy to use.
 
Got the updates downloaded already :D

the 18-55/2.8-4 seems like an excellent "kit" lens, new price and well secondhand price makes the X-E2 an absolute bargain on the refurb store. Yes it's the 50-230 XC lens. I know it was secondhand but it did say excellent condition I thought for £160 it would be silly not to have it. I don't think fuji's are sports / action cameras until the later ones T2 is being extremely well received.

In spite of all the downsides of the fuji (mainly the AF) i felt rewarded when using it, due to it being a more classic feel.
 
andydeano said:
Got the updates downloaded already :D

the 18-55/2.8-4 seems like an excellent "kit" lens, new price and well secondhand price makes the X-E2 an absolute bargain on the refurb store. Yes it's the 50-230 XC lens. I know it was secondhand but it did say excellent condition I thought for £160 it would be silly not to have it. I don't think fuji's are sports / action cameras until the later ones T2 is being extremely well received.

In spite of all the downsides of the fuji (mainly the AF) i felt rewarded when using it, due to it being a more classic feel.
Click to expand...

The AF on the X-E2 is superb with the 18-55mm, on a par with the X-T1. Have you tried it in normal light I.e. outdoors? I have no problem snapping my toddlers :)
 
I think the first prime would have to be the 35mm 1.4, unless you have an alternative suggestion?

O I'll have to take a look at the film simulation once I've updated the firmware.

I've not tried it in "normal light", I was kinda hoping that the focusing would be more than acceptable during the day and outdoors, which it sounds like it might be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top